NFL 2013: Week Eight Review
After a one week hiatus the performance ratings are back,
and we see many familiar faces at the top, and bottom from the last
version. Denver continues to lead,
Carolina has jumped into the 2nd spot, their highest rating of all time,
while relative newcomers Kansas City and Cincinnati hold down spots in the top
7.
Performance Ratings (max grade is 160, 80 on offense and 80
on defense, calculated using 16 different stats with 5 points per stat being
the best score = 16x5 = 80).
|
OFFENSE
|
DEFENSE
|
TOTAL
TEAM
|
Blended
|
||||||||||
|
Wins
|
Rating
|
Rank
|
Rating
|
Rank
|
Rating
|
Rank
|
SOS
|
TOM
|
|||||
|
7
|
DEN
|
56.7
|
1
|
42.4
|
10
|
99.1
|
1
|
29
|
(1)
|
||||
|
4
|
CAR
|
48.9
|
4
|
47.1
|
4
|
96.1
|
2
|
31
|
6
|
||||
|
5
|
GB
|
54.3
|
2
|
41.6
|
14
|
95.9
|
3
|
13
|
(2)
|
||||
|
6
|
NO
|
48.3
|
7
|
44.4
|
8
|
92.6
|
4
|
27
|
8
|
||||
|
7
|
SEA
|
43.3
|
13
|
49.4
|
2
|
92.6
|
4
|
25
|
9
|
||||
|
8
|
KC
|
40.9
|
17
|
50.9
|
1
|
91.8
|
6
|
32
|
12
|
||||
|
6
|
CIN
|
43.4
|
12
|
45.3
|
7
|
88.7
|
7
|
18
|
(1)
|
||||
|
5
|
DET
|
48.9
|
5
|
39.0
|
20
|
87.9
|
8
|
26
|
1
|
||||
|
2
|
HOU
|
41.8
|
15
|
46.0
|
5
|
87.8
|
9
|
5
|
(11)
|
||||
|
6
|
SF
|
45.3
|
9
|
41.8
|
12
|
87.1
|
10
|
23
|
4
|
||||
|
5
|
IND
|
46.3
|
8
|
40.6
|
18
|
86.9
|
11
|
7
|
7
|
||||
|
4
|
SD
|
50.6
|
3
|
34.2
|
27
|
84.8
|
12
|
22
|
(6)
|
||||
|
4
|
NYJ
|
33.2
|
27
|
47.8
|
3
|
80.9
|
13
|
30
|
(12)
|
||||
|
3
|
PHI
|
43.6
|
11
|
35.8
|
26
|
79.4
|
14
|
28
|
(1)
|
||||
|
3
|
BAL
|
32.7
|
28
|
45.6
|
6
|
78.4
|
15
|
12
|
(2)
|
||||
|
4
|
CHI
|
48.4
|
6
|
29.6
|
30
|
78.1
|
16
|
17
|
7
|
||||
|
2
|
WAS
|
44.1
|
10
|
33.7
|
28
|
77.9
|
17
|
2
|
(3)
|
||||
|
4
|
DAL
|
41.4
|
16
|
35.9
|
24
|
77.3
|
18
|
14
|
9
|
||||
|
6
|
NE
|
34.5
|
23
|
42.6
|
9
|
77.1
|
19
|
24
|
5
|
||||
|
3
|
OAK
|
34.9
|
21
|
40.9
|
15
|
75.8
|
20
|
6
|
0
|
||||
|
2
|
PIT
|
33.9
|
26
|
41.9
|
11
|
75.7
|
21
|
20
|
(9)
|
||||
|
2
|
ATL
|
42.0
|
14
|
33.6
|
29
|
75.6
|
22
|
21
|
(3)
|
||||
|
4
|
ARI
|
34.3
|
24
|
40.7
|
17
|
75.0
|
23
|
11
|
1
|
||||
|
3
|
MIA
|
34.0
|
25
|
40.9
|
16
|
74.9
|
24
|
16
|
(3)
|
||||
|
3
|
BUF
|
35.1
|
20
|
39.2
|
19
|
74.3
|
25
|
11
|
2
|
||||
|
3
|
TEN
|
36.1
|
18
|
38.1
|
23
|
74.2
|
26
|
1
|
6
|
||||
|
3
|
CLE
|
31.5
|
29
|
41.8
|
12
|
73.3
|
27
|
15
|
(2)
|
||||
|
3
|
STL
|
35.8
|
19
|
35.9
|
25
|
71.6
|
28
|
20
|
1
|
||||
|
2
|
NYG
|
29.3
|
30
|
38.2
|
22
|
67.5
|
29
|
8
|
(12)
|
||||
|
0
|
TB
|
28.6
|
31
|
38.4
|
21
|
66.9
|
30
|
4
|
(1)
|
||||
|
1
|
MIN
|
34.7
|
22
|
27.6
|
31
|
62.3
|
31
|
11
|
(2)
|
||||
|
0
|
JAC
|
24.4
|
32
|
25.1
|
32
|
49.5
|
32
|
3
|
(7)
|
||||
An interesting pair of stats to track this season versus the
performance ratings are SOS & TOM.
What makes those two stats add value to your week to week analysis is
you can adjust these performance ratings a touch based on either/both of those
metrics. For example, when analyzing SOS
we see that GB has clearly faced the toughest competition compared to the Top 8
teams in the performance ratings, making their grade of 95.9 that much more
impressive. You can likely make a case
that although the Panthers check in at #2 in the performance ratings the
Packers have performed better to date since they are only trailing Carolina by
0.2 in the ratings but have faced a schedule slotted 18 spots higher. We can also go down to the 9th
rated team Houston – and we see their SOS is very high and their TOM is 3rd
worst in the NFL. What does that
mean? With the QB change it’s hard to
say for sure, but I still consider Houston a good team, and once their schedule
eases up some, and if they can hang onto the ball going forward, their
performance should keep them in games, and thus we should find a lot of value
in their lines moving forward. Examining
the TOM again we see of the Top 6 teams in the ratings only Denver and Green
Bay sport a negative margin – again meaning there should be opportunity for
those teams to improve and be of value against the # if they can hang onto the
football, and take it away from their opponents. Denver also brings up a unique angle in that
they lead the NFL in fumbles and fumbles lost – typically that is an easier fix
versus a QB that is throwing INTs.
Sliding a bit further down the ratings the Bears and Cowboys have both
performed better record wise than their true in game performance would indicate
– a lot of which is driven by strong TOM figures. If and when those figures start regressing
towards 0, which will typically happen but not always in season, they could be
teams to keep a “fading” eye on – in particular Dallas since they have gone 7-1
ATS so far, but only 4-4 SU. Lastly, at
the bottom of the ratings, as mentioned in my last edition, Jacksonville is
playing at an all-time low level – easily the worst team since I started these
ratings. Setting them aside, and
attempting to identify the other bad teams in the league, Tampa Bay and
Minnesota stand out based on not only their poor rating, but also because they
have not suffered from a terrible TOM, while not playing the most difficult of
schedules. Examining all this data and
using each indicator to come up with your own valuations of teams in the league
should help your handicapping process each week.
For this season I am adding a new analysis based on the
performance ratings which I will call red flag/green light for the remainder of
the season. Here I will ONLY use my
performance ratings and give teams that could be undervalued (green light) by
Vegas and are performing better than many believe versus red flag teams that
have an inflated record and reputation in Vegas compared to their true on the
field performance:
- Red Flag: ARI, CHI, NE, DAL
- Green Light: DEN, CAR, GB, DET
Next let’s examine conference and divisional breakdowns to
see where the strengths and weaknesses are across the NFL landscape:
|
Rating
|
NFL
|
|
|
AW
|
39
|
1
|
|
NS
|
58
|
3
|
|
NN
|
58
|
3
|
|
NW
|
65
|
4
|
|
AN
|
70
|
5
|
|
AS
|
78
|
7
|
|
NE
|
78
|
7
|
|
AE
|
81
|
8
|
The AFC West remains the top division which should come as
no surprise since KC remains undefeated and Denver continues to lead the
performance ratings. It also helps that
Oakland, the division’s worst team, checks in at an improving 20th. The NFC owns the next 3 spots in the
divisional rankings with the NFC East being the lone outlier – but they have
risen above the AFC East who now has the worst division in football according
to my performance ratings.
Next up, here are my projected standings after Wk8. As a reminder, this process involves playing
out the entire season based on my power ratings for each team. For more information on this topic and
process, and to see how accurate this exercise has been in the past, please read
this blog entry from July 31, 2012.
|
AFC East
|
Wins
|
Loss
|
NFC East
|
Wins
|
Loss
|
|
|
NE
|
9.91
|
6.09
|
DAL
|
7.73
|
8.27
|
|
|
NYJ
|
7.87
|
8.14
|
WAS
|
6.92
|
9.08
|
|
|
MIA
|
7.46
|
8.54
|
PHI
|
6.74
|
9.26
|
|
|
BUF
|
7.18
|
8.82
|
NYG
|
5.12
|
10.88
|
|
|
AFC North
|
NFC North
|
|||||
|
CIN
|
10.70
|
5.30
|
GB
|
11.49
|
4.51
|
|
|
BAL
|
7.40
|
8.60
|
DET
|
9.74
|
6.26
|
|
|
CLE
|
6.72
|
9.28
|
CHI
|
8.10
|
7.90
|
|
|
PIT
|
6.23
|
9.77
|
MIN
|
3.79
|
12.21
|
|
|
AFC South
|
NFC South
|
|||||
|
IND
|
10.18
|
5.82
|
NO
|
10.98
|
5.02
|
|
|
HOU
|
7.89
|
8.11
|
CAR
|
9.26
|
6.74
|
|
|
TEN
|
7.48
|
8.52
|
ATL
|
5.51
|
10.49
|
|
|
JAC
|
1.12
|
14.88
|
TB
|
3.25
|
12.75
|
|
|
AFC West
|
NFC West
|
|||||
|
DEN
|
12.86
|
3.14
|
SEA
|
12.74
|
3.26
|
|
|
KC
|
11.78
|
4.22
|
SF
|
11.20
|
4.80
|
|
|
SD
|
7.78
|
8.22
|
ARI
|
7.91
|
8.09
|
|
|
OAK
|
7.03
|
8.98
|
STL
|
5.95
|
10.05
|
|
|
Playoffs
|
Playoffs
|
|||||
|
#6 HOU @ #3 IND
|
#6 DET @ #3 NO
|
|||||
|
#5 KC @ #4 NE
|
#5 SF @ #4 DAL
|
|||||
|
#1 DEN
|
#1 SEA
|
|||||
|
#2 CIN
|
#2 GB
|
|||||
Here is a matrix that shows playoff seeding projections
after each week’s action:
|
NFC
|
AFC
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Wk1
|
Wk2
|
Wk3
|
Wk4
|
Wk5
|
Wk6
|
Wk7
|
Wk8
|
Wk1
|
Wk2
|
Wk3
|
Wk4
|
Wk5
|
Wk6
|
Wk7
|
Wk8
|
|||
|
ARI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ATL
|
BUF
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
CAR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CIN
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
|
|
CHI
|
6
|
6
|
2
|
6
|
CLE
|
|||||||||||||
|
DAL
|
|
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
DEN
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
DET
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
6
|
HOU
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
6
|
6
|
||||||
|
GB
|
2
|
2
|
5
|
|
6
|
6
|
2
|
2
|
IND
|
6
|
|
|
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
3
|
|
|
MIN
|
JAC
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
NO
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
KC
|
|
6
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
|
|
NYG
|
MIA
|
5
|
5
|
6
|
6
|
6
|
||||||||||||
|
PHI
|
4
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NE
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
|
|
SEA
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
NYJ
|
6
|
||||||||
|
SF
|
5
|
5
|
6
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
OAK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STL
|
PIT
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
TB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SD
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WAS
|
TEN
|
|||||||||||||||||
Last analysis for this week (I will post each week just like
the standings above) is my power rankings.
My rankings are comprised of a pair of numbers: one measures team
performance in my performance ratings (discussed in the opener of this entry);
two measures team performance vs. the spread.
These two ratings are weighted and combined for my official power
rankings. For my blog I will only
provide the order of the teams, not the actual power ranking as that is for my
eyes only because it is used in my weekly handicapping process as potential
model plays:
|
1
|
DEN
|
|
2
|
SEA
|
|
3
|
SF
|
|
4
|
GB
|
|
5
|
NO
|
|
6
|
CAR
|
|
7
|
HOU
|
|
8
|
CIN
|
|
9
|
KC
|
|
9
|
IND
|
|
11
|
DET
|
|
12
|
NE
|
|
13
|
WAS
|
|
14
|
DAL
|
|
15
|
SD
|
|
16
|
MIA
|
|
16
|
ARI
|
|
18
|
CHI
|
|
19
|
BAL
|
|
20
|
PIT
|
|
20
|
BUF
|
|
22
|
TEN
|
|
23
|
OAK
|
|
24
|
NYJ
|
|
24
|
ATL
|
|
26
|
PHI
|
|
27
|
STL
|
|
28
|
CLE
|
|
29
|
NYG
|
|
30
|
TB
|
|
31
|
MIN
|
|
32
|
JAC
|
Thanks again for reading, please feel free to:
Email me directly: boss@thesportsboss.com
Visit my website: www.thesportsboss.com
Follow me on Twitter: @SportsBoss
Follow me on Facebook: The SportsBoss
Leave comments here on the blog
COPYRIGHT: THE SPORTSBOSS, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment